Interpretation Of Constitution.

1. Introduction.
Constitution is a body of law that determines the roles, structures, powers and
functions of the executive, the legislative and the judiciary and also includes the
basic rights of the citizens of our country. Constitution is the primary source for
many other laws. The Constitution of India came into force on January 26,
1950. Each word in the Constitution is fairly stated and are not that easy to
change. But laws enacted by legislature now-a-days are dynamic, and they
reflect the current state of the Constitution. To check whether the new laws are
consistent with the basic structure of the Constitution, many a times the
Constitution is interpreted.
In this presentation we’ll try to cover phases of Constitutional interpretation,
theories of constitution interpretation, Indian perspective of interpretation,
general rules and principles of interpretation, articles involved & judicial
decisions made so far.

2. What is interpretation of constitution?

"Constitutional interpretation" comprehends the methods or strategies available
to people attempting to resolve disputes about the meaning or application of the
Constitution. The possible sources for interpretation include the text of the
Constitution, its "original history," including the general social and political
context in which it was adopted as well as the events immediately surrounding
its adoption, the governmental structures created and recognized by the
Constitution, the "ongoing history" of interpretations of the Constitution, and
the social, political, and moral values of the interpreter's society or some
subgroup of the society.

3. Theories of constitutional interpretation.

a. Textualism
Supreme Court has taken up the idea of textualist approach to mainly focus on
the literal meaning of the words used in the Constitution. In the earlier days, the
Court relied explicitly on the views and thoughts of the framers/draftsmen of the
Constitution, by relying on Constitutional Assembly Debates. But later the
Supreme Court consciously avoided relying too much on the thoughts of the
framers. This kind of interpretation was familiar to British legal training. The
Court considered this phase of interpretation as a virtue in itself.
 the Supreme Court adopted a textualist approach, focusing on the plain
meaning of the words used in the Constitution. A.K. Gopalan v. State of
Madras (1950) was one of the early decisions in which the Court was called
upon to interpret the fundamental rights under Part III. The leader of the
Communist Party of India claimed that preventive detention legislation under
which he was detained was inconsistent with Articles 19 (the right to freedom),
21 (the right to life) and 22 (the protection against arbitrary arrest and
detention). The Supreme Court decided that each of those articles covered
entirely different subject matter, and were to be read as separate codes rather
than being read together.
Eight propositions about the nature of Constitutions and the rule of law that
support the originalist school of interpretation. They are:
1. A Constitution necessarily has a meaning prior to judicial interpretation of it;
2. To change the meaning of a law is to change the law;
3. The original meaning of a Constitution is its “utterance meaning,” which
must be distinguished from its original literal meaning and its originally
intended meaning;
4. Constitutional amending formulas bind judges as well as other officials and
preclude change through judicial interpretation;
5. Change to the constitution through interpretation undermines the
Constitution, the rule of law, the principle of democracy, and the principle of
federalism;
6. Judges are duty-bound to determine and clarify the pre-existing meaning of
the Constitution but can supplement that meaning when it is not sufficiently
determinate to resolve the problem at hand.
7. Although judges cannot deliberately change the Constitution, constitutional
law can and does legitimately evolve over time; and
8. Consistent application of any constitutional theory, including originalism,
might lead to grave injustice in a particular case and if it does, judges might be
morally bound to disobey the Constitution, but this has nothing to do with the
true meaning of the Constitution
b. Structuralism.
Structuralists use the overall constitutional arrangement of offices, powers, and
relationships or rather “the meaning of the Constitution as a whole”, to solve
hard cases. The U.S. Constitution’s leading structural principles are federalism,
separation of powers and democracy, even though none are stated explicitly in
the constitutional text.
The structuralist also firmly believes in the law’s ability to provide answers to
any legal issues that may arise and searches within the system to identify
language that is capable of being mutated to accommodate situations while
continuing to retain the legal character that it is endowed with.
In the second phase, the Supreme Court began exploring other methods of
interpretation. Appeals to the text of the Constitution were gradually overtaken
by appeals to the Constitution’s overall structure and coherence. In the leading
case of Keshavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), the Court concluded
that Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution did not extend to altering its
“basic structure” — an open-ended catalogue of features that lies within the
exclusive control of the Court. When Parliament attempted to overturn this
decision by amending the Constitution yet again, the Court, relying on
structuralist justifications, decisively rejected that attempt.
c. Philosophical approach.
In the third phase, the Supreme Court turned towards the Philosophical
approach. This approach involved primarily two features. First, the changing
structure of the Court, which may be taken as eight Judges grew into thirty-one
Judges. Even though Article 145(3) requires all substantial questions of law
involving interpretation of the Constitution to be decided by Constitution
benches, this requirement was ignored in practise. Second, the Court began
deciding cases based on a certain conception of its own role — whether as sentinel
of democracy or protector of the market economy. This unique decision-making
process side-lined reason-giving in preference to arriving at outcomes that match
the Court’s perception.
d. Purposive interpretation.
We are currently in the midst of transitioning from the third phase of
constitutional interpretation to the fourth. In the fourth phase, the Court has
acknowledged as critical to its interpretive exercise the purpose for which the
Constitution has been enacted. Many Constitutions attempt the task of
entrenching a political compromise between the incumbents and challengers of
the day. India’s Constitution, at its very inception, was different. In enacting
the Constitution, the founders of our Republic expressed a sense of unease
with the status quo and raised expectations of root-and-branch social
revolution and transformation. The Court is now beginning to interpret the
Constitution in accordance with its revolutionary and transformative potential.
With about a dozen significant Constitution Bench decisions from the Supreme
Court since September 2018, there has been a renaissance in decision-making
by Constitution Benches. This includes the Court’s decisions striking down
Section 377 and the criminal offence of adultery, and including the office of
the Chief Justice of India within the scope of the Right to Information Act.

4. Judicial decisions.

a. Harsharan Verma v. Union of India, 1987 Supp SCC 310.

The court said that courts do not undertake interpretation of the Constitution
unless there is a live issue before them.
b. B.R. Kapur v. State of T.N., (2001) 7 SCC.
It is the duty of the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution. It must perform
that duty regardless of the fact that the answer to the question would have a
political effect.
c. Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi, (1981) 1 SCC 722
The term the “State” in Article 12 of the Constitution has been interpreted to
include authorities which are instrumentality or agency of the State.
d. Express Newspaper (P) Ltd. v. Union of India, 1959 SCR 12
Freedom of speech and expression under Article 19, includes within its scope
the freedom of the press.

5. General rules of interpretation of constitution.

a. If the words are clear and unambiguous, they must be given the full
effect.
b. The constitution must be read as a whole.
c. Principles of harmonious construction must be applied.
d. The Constitution must be interpreted in a broad and literal sense.
e. The court has to infer the spirit of the Constitution from the
language.
f. Internal and External aids may be used while interpreting.
g. The Constitution prevails over other statutes.
 6. Provisions involved.
The following provisions of the Constitution indicate the role assigned by the
Constitution to the Supreme Court, for the purpose of interpreting the
Constitution itself:

 According to Article 132 of the Constitution – “an appeal shall lie to the
Supreme Court from any Judgement decree or final order of a High
Court in the territory of India, whether a Civil, Criminal or other
proceeding, if the High Court certifies under article 134-A that the case
involves a substantial question of law as to interpretation of the
Constitution”.
 According to Article 141 “the law declared by the Supreme Court shall
be binding on all Courts within the territory of India. Under the
Constitution, an individual has access to the Supreme Court for
interpretation of the Constitution, and the interpretation given by the
Supreme Court is binding on all”.

7. Analysis and conclusion.

Constitutional interpretation has an intricate relationship with Constitutional
change. Mostly, interpretations teach us how easy it is to amend a Constitution.
Most provisions of the Constitutions can be amended by two-third majority in
Parliament. The structure and composition of a Court have an important bearing
on its interpretive approach. The aforementioned methods of interpretation are
in no manner exhaustive. There are several other mechanisms and techniques
used for interpretation of the Constitution besides these methods of
interpretation. It is explicitly stated in our Constitution that it can be interpreted
at times of need by the Articles 132 and 141. The majority Judgement in cases
of Kesavananda Bharati v State of Kerala and Minerva Mills Ltd strongly
relied upon the preamble in reaching the conclusion that power of amendment
conferred by Article 368 was limited and did not enable parliament to alter the
basic structure or framework of the Constitution.
In many of the cases Indian Supreme Court’s approach to Constitutional
interpretation have induced global interpretive trends. There are many
Judgements of the Supreme Court with many more interpretive techniques.
Tracking the developing world interpretations also developed from textualism
to various techniques and approaches. The exponential growth of judgments
interpreting the Constitution has led to increasingly precedent-laden and
doctrine-heavy decisions, that sometimes lose sight of the document that is
being interpreted.